Rant 1.01

While reading a blog I enjoy, I came across the following statement:

“I realized that the life of St. Francis was causing me to think about the life of Jesus in new ways. Whatever you think of the man Jesus, whether you count him as the divine son of God who died for our sins, or as a good man and interesting teacher who met an unfortunate end, you can not deny that Jesus was a man who saw a way of living and pursued that way with radical integrity.”

I was a little troubled that this was posted by a Minister of the Christian faith. I recognize there are folks out there who don’t look upon Christ as the Divine Son of God revealed, but it seems that a Minister of God’s Word even offering the concept that Christ was just a “good man” who met an unfortunate end” is outside the scope of their call; though I’m pretty sure that wasn’t their intention.

I choose to believe this author’s key point was in regard to Jesus living a life of supreme integrity as an example to Christians and non-Christians alike, rather than the actual thought that Jesus might only be a radical mortal being.

I also have an acquaintance (a professing Episcopalian) who opines they do not accept in the Virgin Birth (Incarnation). This also is problematic. For I feel that:

If you believe in the Resurrection, you must accept the Crucifixion.
And, to believe in the Crucifixion, you must accept the Incarnation.

If not, Holy Scripture is nothing more than a lot of good principles; a nice story to tell your children; a great blueprint for living a righteous life; but what the hell good is that? Seems there’s no other way around it.

I have heard it said that “when one tries to stand for everything they really stand for nothing.”

Where do you see ECUSA standing today?